Comments on: WTF?! Elton John “Very Happy With Civil Union” Yes On 8 Solicitation

By: Fern

Fern — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:17:33 +0000

This is how it is done in some countries – can’t remember right now which ones.

By: Fern

Fern — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:15:53 +0000

Zactly.

By: marshen

marshen — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:03:22 +0000

What would Diana, Princess of Wales, have said to her friend Sir Elton? I think she would have set him straight. Elton, you made a fortune off those gay folks in the US, could’nt you at least support them whether you completely agree or not? Does the good will of your fans mean nothing ant more? Talk about being out of touch with reality.

By: IamWordsmith

IamWordsmith — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:18:45 +0000

All the Young Girls Love Alice!

The only album I ever bought of Elton John’s.

By: Teddy Partridge

Teddy Partridge — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:18:33 +0000

If we try to eliminate civil marriage and have domestic partnerships for all, the wingnuts will claim another victory — “See, they ARE trying to destroy marriage!” Best to make society give us the same thing everyone else has, and make clear (as Assemblyman Mark Leno’s twice-vetoed legislation does) that churches are free to do whatever they want and not forced to do anything they don’t.

Giving us marriage doesn’t change yours; but taking away civil marriage sounds like we’re tearing at the fabric of traditional marriage. Why tear down? Sure, in a just society, government would simply enforce a contract between two people, but here we have a name for that contract: MARRIAGE.

Elton is an idiot not to have known the wingnuts would use his words.

By: IamWordsmith

IamWordsmith — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:11:48 +0000

Not so Elton. I was just talking to a friend who works with a lesbian. (Oh, bear with me for the sake of argument, please!) My friend, Julz, is absolutely up in arms because Kyra and her partner cannot marry. Kyra’s employer provides benefit for those in ’significant other’ relationships, be it hetero or homo. They can get insurance, etc. However those benefits are limited or different from those who are actually married.

By: selise

selise — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:09:22 +0000

thanks.

By: DrDave

DrDave — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:06:58 +0000

All bubble; no bath.

By: marymccurnin

marymccurnin — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:52:50 +0000

Marriage is a contract between three entities, the state and the couple. Only the state knows the terms of the contract. The couple has to negotiate with the state to get out of the contract. But, first, some have to negotiate with a church. Pretzel logic. No logic. Cultural bullshit all around.

Much of this was originally for the control and subjugation of women. Women used to have to get married if they wanted any stability financially. It was, in part, a business decision.

Now it has become “the most important day in my life and I want to be a princess” More cultural bullshit.

Civil unions should be granted to all. No marriages by the state. Marriages can be held in religious buildings presided over by religious people.

By: selise

selise — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:43:19 +0000

maybe we need to have both “civil” marriages and “religious” marriages - and keep the two separated?

i don’t know, but our current system just seems so effed up to me… it’s a separate issue but maybe the equal rights campaigns will provoke us to rethink the whole thing?